• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Myth That Obamacare Is Destroying Full-Time Jobs Just Got Debunked

Mycroft said:
So...neither one of you can factually dispute any of the examples in their list.

I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

Im not surprised you don't get it. If you accept anything someone says until proven wrong, you're guilty of thinking illogically, likely due to your bias. I've laid out logically a couple of errors. Now you could have addressed them. You chose not to.
 
Born Free said:
It's what Obama said that is untrue, People are losing their insurance because of Obamacare and he said you could keep it. that is a flat out lie. Second he said you will save $2500 on your insurance cost over the year, another lie. He said if you want to keep your Dr. you can. Another lie.

Now you can try and change what he said all you want, but when you do you just pile on another lie. Like what he said is really not what he said. Yes he said those things and they are all lies. Period. :doh

Watch this

FREEDOM EDEN: Obama: 20 Promises for $2,500
Click to expand...

Well, if we want too measure that, line up all of Washington, no exceptions. But that's not really the point. Essentially he did nothing that should cause anything you speak of. And really hasn't. Instead, you guys keep pointing to what has been going on for a long, long time. That's not logical.

Obama isn't king. Politicians tend to make bold proclamations they can't control. They all do it. But in context, and within what was actually passed, he was largely correct.
 
poweRob said:
I agree with you. It's going to take time to see the real effects. That's why I'm flabbergasted when people claim that Obamacare is destroying the country and such. You don't hear "Obamacare is GOING TO destroy the country." It's already destroying it. Hell... it's the worst thing since slavery.
Click to expand...

Slavery wasn't so bad until Anthony Johnson died and the folks in Jamestown decided they needed to find a way to let the rich white guy who wanted his 200 acre farm have his 200 acre farm and abracadabra blacks couldn't own land because they weren't real colonist, which quickly became not real human beings. Kind of went downhill from there for awhile. It can be a bad thing without destroying the economy. It is just a wait and see at this point.
 
Boo Radley said:
Im not surprised you don't get it. If you accept anything someone says until proven wrong, you're guilty of thinking illogically, likely due to your bias. I've laid out logically a couple of errors. Now you could have addressed them. You chose not to.
Click to expand...

Okay, your going to stick with your "make a general statement and apply it to the whole article" game.

Perhaps you can apply your logical thinking to the following:

"34. Community College of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
The Pittsburgh-area community college informed about 400 part-time employees that they would see a reduction in their hours starting in January of this year to comply with Obamacare regulations. The school had to make this change a year before the law went into effect because Obamacare stipulates that the federal government must look back one year to determine an employee’s status."

Do you consider this a "could happen" or "might happen" situation because Obamacare "might" or "could" affect them somehow? Or, do you consider this a very straightforward reaction to Obamacare?
 
Mycroft said:
Okay, your going to stick with your "make a general statement and apply it to the whole article" game.

Perhaps you can apply your logical thinking to the following:

"34. Community College of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
The Pittsburgh-area community college informed about 400 part-time employees that they would see a reduction in their hours starting in January of this year to comply with Obamacare regulations. The school had to make this change a year before the law went into effect because Obamacare stipulates that the federal government must look back one year to determine an employee’s status."

Do you consider this a "could happen" or "might happen" situation because Obamacare "might" or "could" affect them somehow? Or, do you consider this a very straightforward reaction to Obamacare?
Click to expand...

I work for a community college. The law makes full time more profitable for the school. You will also find that adjuncts were becoming the norm for decades. It's not new. Hard to blame ACA for this. So, it is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Good or bad, all the research suggests that the fate of students and colleges is tied to part-time labor. Colleges across the country are relying more and more heavily on adjunct professors as a cost saving measure. Some community colleges in New Jersey, like Burlington, are now relying almost entirely on adjuncts to teach all of their classes, a move that has come under steep criticism from teachers’ unions.

Adjunct professors: Valued assets or disposable laborers? - The VOICE

You will also note across the country enrollment numbers are down. This also plays a roll, with reductions being the norm. So when a claim is made, you have to ask more than you do.
 
Boo Radley said:
I work for a community college. The law makes full time more profitable for the school. You will also find that adjuncts were becoming the norm for decades. It's not new. Hard to blame ACA for this. So, it is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Good or bad, all the research suggests that the fate of students and colleges is tied to part-time labor. Colleges across the country are relying more and more heavily on adjunct professors as a cost saving measure. Some community colleges in New Jersey, like Burlington, are now relying almost entirely on adjuncts to teach all of their classes, a move that has come under steep criticism from teachers’ unions.

Adjunct professors: Valued assets or disposable laborers? - The VOICE

You will also note across the country enrollment numbers are down. This also plays a roll, with reductions being the norm. So when a claim is made, you have to ask more than you do.
Click to expand...

sigh...

When confronted with a direct statement of the effects of Obamacare on an organization's employment situation, you continue to try to play it off as being due to something else. Very well.

I have nothing more to say to you.
 
head of joaquin said:
If the premise is that ACA subsidizes in full all medical care not covered by Medicare or Medicaid, then the premise is false, if not bizarre.
Click to expand...

No, the post you replied to was in reference to a single payer system.
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

When confronted with a direct statement of the effects of Obamacare on an organization's employment situation, you continue to try to play it off as being due to something else. Very well.

I have nothing more to say to you.
Click to expand...

So, when the facts she'd doubt on your statement, you run.

A recent analysis has shown there are 143 full-time faculty at OCCC and 533 adjunct, or part-time, faculty.

Part-time professors outnumber full time 3 to 1
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

When confronted with a direct statement of the effects of Obamacare on an organization's employment situation, you continue to try to play it off as being due to something else. Very well.

I have nothing more to say to you.
Click to expand...

Btw, you could have looked at the school as well. You'd have found they are reacting nog to anything that has happened but more maybes.

Still:
As Pennsylvania colleges have increasingly relied on adjuncts to teach a majority of classes, New Faculty Majority, a national nonprofit group that advocates for part-time college and university faculty, is watching for cuts to teaching hours at other schools due to Obamacare.

CCAC Cuts Adjuncts' Hours To Avoid Obamacare Requirements
 
washunut said:
Looking at one month seems to be pretty stupid. For example, it would not account for seasonality. Such as part time summer jobs going away and teachers going back to work.

Business people are rational. If you say that instead of hiring 3 people to work 120 hours you get to save several thousand per worker if you hire 4 people working 30 hours ( a bit less to fall under the threshold) then guess what the good manager will do.
Click to expand...

Yep. all the Mexican farm workers have left here as all the tobacco is firing in the barns.
 
I've never accepted the part-time employment myth based on the PPACA because the narrative simply doesn't add up:

1) How can a law be the rationale for forcing part-time employment when the law hasn't even taken full affect yet?

2) Employers aren't cutting full-time employment based on the actual increased operating cost of health insurance, but rather on the "estimated cost" the law may have on their operating budgets.

The GOP, therefore, has been very effective at convincing people that the law is a "job killer" when the truth is employers are hiring, they're just purposely hiring people part-time to cut expenses and using the PPACA as justification for not hiring people full-time. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand why an employer whose payroll is extremely high using the law to cut cost. I mean, if health care cost is one of your biggest business expenses and the law makes it clear that you can reduce your operating expenses AND avoid a large federal penalty by hiring part-time workers and still maintain production output in doing so, I can certainly understand employers large and small going this route. But DON'T use the PPACA as your excuse. It's just patently false to justify hiring people part-time for a law that hasn't come into full effect yet.
 
LowDown said:
The overall trend is that part time employment is going up, but so is full time employment:

View attachment 67155680

The numbers reported are basically just statistical noise.

There have been many reports of people being forced to go part time, but apparently that's a small part of the total picture.

I don't think there's any doubt that the ACA is suppressing job growth. I've never heard of employers hiring more people if it costs them a lot more to do so. That would sort of fly in the face of the liberal view of business people, would it not? :2razz:
Click to expand...

The holiday season is almost here and I would expect a lot of fulltime Jobs to be added but they will go away in January.
 
Part time is accelerating in industries with lower profit margins, like food, retail and customer service. Huge penalties that bite deep into small profits hurt, thus moves to save money by cutting hours makes sense. That's the dirty truth.
 
MrVicchio said:
Part time is accelerating in industries with lower profit margins, like food, retail and customer service. Huge penalties that bite deep into small profits hurt, thus moves to save money by cutting hours makes sense. That's the dirty truth.
Click to expand...

Nothing new there.

image.jpg

But a closer look at the data provides little evidence for the notion that the health law is driving a shift to part-time work, although it could as the mandate deadline approaches.

First of all, over a longer time frame, part-time work has actually been falling as a share of employment in recent years. Before the recession, about 17% of employed Americans worked 35 hours or less, the standard Labor Department definition of “part time.” During the recession, that figure rose, briefly hitting 20%. It’s been trending down since then, but only slowly, hitting 19% in September.

Don’t Blame Health Law for High Part-Time Employment - Real Time Economics - WSJ
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing new there.

View attachment 67155690

But a closer look at the data provides little evidence for the notion that the health law is driving a shift to part-time work, although it could as the mandate deadline approaches.

First of all, over a longer time frame, part-time work has actually been falling as a share of employment in recent years. Before the recession, about 17% of employed Americans worked 35 hours or less, the standard Labor Department definition of “part time.” During the recession, that figure rose, briefly hitting 20%. It’s been trending down since then, but only slowly, hitting 19% in September.

Don’t Blame Health Law for High Part-Time Employment - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Click to expand...

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ry-of-health-care-costs-eye-workers-hours.ece
Full-Time Vs. Part-Time Workers: Restaurants Weigh Obamacare : NPR
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com <-- VERY good listing.
 
MrVicchio said:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/...ry-of-health-care-costs-eye-workers-hours.ece
Full-Time Vs. Part-Time Workers: Restaurants Weigh Obamacare : NPR
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com <-- VERY good listing.
Click to expand...

While I got a chuckle at me using the WSJ and you NPR, from your article:

. But there are no hard data, so far, showing the industry moving to more part-time employees, says Scott DeFife, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.
 
Boo Radley said:
While I got a chuckle at me using the WSJ and you NPR, from your article:

. But there are no hard data, so far, showing the industry moving to more part-time employees, says Scott DeFife, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.
Click to expand...

I use plenty of sources. Sorry you can't accept that, did you read the last one?

This year, report after report has rolled in about employers restricting work hours to fewer than 30 per week — the point where the mandate kicks in. Data also point to a record low workweek in low-wage industries.
In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels. As of Oct. 17, our ObamaCare scorecard included 351 employers. Here's our latest analysis, highlighting the consequences of cuts to work hours at more than 100 school districts due to ObamaCare's employer mandate. Recently, we examined Indiana's 10th Amendment challenge to the employer mandate. IBD also explained why the employer mandate will undercut the goals of ObamaCare — affordable, reliable coverage — even in cases when employers don't cut work hours. The ObamaCare list methodology is explained further in our initial coverage; click on the employer names in the list below for links to supporting records, mostly news accounts or official documents.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Click to expand...

But I guess that's not "hard data" enough for you.
 
poweRob said:
True. In the link a made within the content:

This was the second straight month of part-time jobs falling.​
Click to expand...

Those are seasonal jobs.
 
Let's get some "hard data"
Salina JournalStarting in a few weeks, the Salina Family YMCA will start capping the schedules of part-time employees at 25 hours a week to avoid having to offer them health insurance benefits as part of the federal Affordable Care Act.
"It's unfortunate," said DeWayne Donaldson, president and CEO of the Salina Family YMCA. "We have a lot of good people who you'd love to have working more hours that we're going to have to cut."
- See more at: salina.com - an online service of the Salina Journal
Click to expand...

GRANTVILLE, Pa. (WHTM) -Thirty may or may not be a winning number at the roulette tables, but 30 is an important number at Hollywood Casino in Grantville.
Lots of employers are focusing on 30 as the nation inches closer to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The casino notified part-time employees who may have worked more than 30 hours a week in the past that they can no longer exceed 30.
Click to expand...
Employers keep workers under 30 hours to avoid Obamacare penalty - abc27 WHTM

As part of the new National Health Care initiative, Yochum says they had to reduce the number of hours part-time help worked from 39-to-29 hours.
He says to continue to pay them at 39-hours a week would require the city to offer them health care benefits.
Click to expand...
https://www.facebook.com/CCVreports/posts/702918043057869

The new federal definition of a full-time employee is leading some Triad organizations to reduce weekly hours for part-time workers so they do not become eligible for health insurance coverage.The Affordable Care Act says that by Jan. 1, 2015, employees have to work only 30 hours a week to be considered full time and eligible for coverage.
Affected are employers with at least 50 full-time workers, including schools and state and local governments.
Click to expand...
Some employers cutting hours for part-time workers to avoid new insurance mandate | Courier Tribune, Asheboro

Hasslocher said the delay in Obamacare means he can delay figuring out who among the 1,100 employees will get the most hours to work.

“This is an operational nightmare, when you start having to pick and choose which employees are going to be part-time, and which are going to be full-time,” said Hasslocher.

Full-time means full coverage under the law.

But the local restaurant association says insurance companies aren’t ready to give them the final price-tag on what health care will cost, leaving everyone in financial limbo.

That uncertainty, the business owners say, could be the toughest thing to swallow.

“There’s nothing good that can come out of this. It stifles business. It stifles growth. It hurts the economy, because people cannot plan for what they want to do,” added Hasslocher.
Click to expand...
Happy Hour! Delay in Obamacare buys local restaurants some time | kens5.com San Antonio
 
MrVicchio said:
I use plenty of sources. Sorry you can't accept that, did you read the last one?



But I guess that's not "hard data" enough for you.
Click to expand...

Not really. That was designed to make a little look like a lot, and it gives you no context as to how it looks compared to normal before ACA.


Our ruling

Bartiromo said under Obamacare "we are becoming something of a part-time employment country."

There is anectdotal evidence that some companies are or will reduce the hours of some employees. But those individual instances fail to make a case of moving to a "part-time employment country."

Government numbers actually show that the fraction of part-timers in the workforce has declined since 2010 and in a longer historical perspective, the share of part-timers was less during this recession than in the downturn of 1983.

The argument that the delay of the employer mandate boosted full-time hires is suspect. We see the same trend in previous years well before President Barack Obama was elected.

An independent analysis suggests that the lack of full-time work is the most significant explanation for a persistently high share of part-time work in the labor force.

We rate the claim False.

PolitiFact | Bartiromo says Obamacare is turning us into 'a part-time employment country'
 
MrVicchio said:
Let's get some "hard data"



Employers keep workers under 30 hours to avoid Obamacare penalty - abc27 WHTM


https://www.facebook.com/CCVreports/posts/702918043057869


Some employers cutting hours for part-time workers to avoid new insurance mandate | Courier Tribune, Asheboro


Happy Hour! Delay in Obamacare buys local restaurants some time | kens5.com San Antonio
Click to expand...


facebook?

Non of that supports the claim we're debating. The idea behind the part time not going over 29 hours was to move people to full time. It's at least working where I am. But the move from full time to part time is what we were talking abour
.
 
Boo Radley said:
facebook?

Non of that supports the claim we're debating. The idea behind the part time not going over 29 hours was to move people to full time. It's at least working where I am. But the move from full time to part time is what we were talking abour
.
Click to expand...
What we're talking about is the effect of the ACA on employment and while you're busy crowing about a decrease at the moment, lots of employers are realizing that it's not profitable to have so many full time employees. With the one year delay in the ACA hitting businesses, the full effects aren't landing yet, just wait till the mandate actually kicks in.
 
MrVicchio said:
What we're talking about is the effect of the ACA on employment and while you're busy crowing about a decrease at the moment, lots of employers are realizing that it's not profitable to have so many full time employees. With the one year delay in the ACA hitting businesses, the full effects aren't landing yet, just wait till the mandate actually kicks in.
Click to expand...

Me and you were pretty limited. And frankly to this point there should be no effects. But as I said, part time has been a movement for a while and statistically we're not increasing part time labor. As for reduction of part time hours, for some that encourages a move to full time, as it has with us. Part time employees still need two positions, as they did before, but reduces employers having full time part time who don't have benefits.

Again, all fixed with UHC.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, if we want too measure that, line up all of Washington, no exceptions. But that's not really the point. Essentially he did nothing that should cause anything you speak of. And really hasn't. Instead, you guys keep pointing to what has been going on for a long, long time. That's not logical.

Obama isn't king. Politicians tend to make bold proclamations they can't control. They all do it. But in context, and within what was actually passed, he was largely correct.
Click to expand...

I am measuring exactly what Obama told and sold to the American People, which is a big ****ing lie. Now you can go against Bush about WMD and go for it. But now that Obama tells us lies he is to be held accountable. He lied to the American people, now you push his lies under the rug as they all do it. Sorry that is a miserable excuse and as partisan as it gets. Of course I expected nothing less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom